First diagnosed with Hodgkins stage 3 in 1982. Untreated Hodgkins is 100% fatal. My oncologist suggested radiation therapy and chemo but I chickened
out on chemo. The radiation put me into remission for 5 years. At the reoccurance I agreed with my oncologist that it was time to bring on the big
guns. I've been cancer free since. The Hodgkin's is gone and neither the radiation or chemotherapy seem to have caused any other form of cancer in
23 years.

Yes, chemotherapy agents are toxic. The condition of my veins for years afterward will attest to that. Every technician who treated me handled them
very carefully.

Yes, chemotherapy is horrible (though it is much more refined now than when I went through it). Yes, chemotherapy saved my life. I knew others who
tried alternative therapies. They're dead.

I was a pharmacist for 17 years. Before I quit pharmacy, I worked mostly in hospitals, and I made up a lot of chemo for our cancer patients. I
eventually got interested in studying more natural medicines, and now I practice hypnosis and am working on my homeopathic certification.

Does chemotherapy have a place? Yes. Despite all its dangers, it has saved lots of lives.

Is chemo dangerous? Hell, yes. Does it kill people? Absolutely yes....my grandmother got leukemia and was dead within 1 month after starting
chemotherapy. She died of the pneumonia from the chemo killing off her immune system....not from the leukemia. This is very common.

Should other things be used more than chemo when it comes to cancer? In my personal opinion...yes, I believe so. Since going into holistic medicine, I
have heard of lots of miracles from other types of therapy in cancer patients.

However, everyone makes their own choices. Some patients want chemo, and they have a right to make that choice. I personally, would not take chemo. If
I ever got cancer, I would try other, gentler options, first....simply because I've seen what the cancer patients go through when they get chemo. But
some people want chemo....and chemo does save lives....and that's their choice.

The one problem I have with this thread is the accusation that pharmacists are dispensing poisons and so we deserve to get cancer. Trust me, most
pharmacists that I know think they are doing the best thing for the patient. I know that's what I thought for years, when I was working as a
pharmacist.

When I was a pharmacy student, I spent a month in a pediatric oncology/hematology ward at the university hospital. It was terribly difficult to see
some of these kids suffer with cancer. But at the time, we thought it was the only thing that worked. I certainly had never heard of herbal therapy or
homeopathy for cancer, at that time.

As I got older, and started doing my own research, I came to my own conclusions that natural therapy was better for many different illnesses, and
eventually, I chose to not be a pharmacist anymore. But when I was a pharmacist, I truly thought I was doing the best thing for my patients.

But every patient deserves the choice. If they choose chemotherapy, that's their choice. If they don't, that's their choice. You have to respect
everyone's choice.

Trust me, the hospital patients are CLEARLY warned with pages and pages of warnings, clearly telling them of all the risks of chemo. They have to sign
these warnings......the patients know all the risks. But still, most of them choose chemo anyway.

Unfortunately, we as pharmacists were never warned about having a higher risk of cancer. We had to gown up and wear two layers of thick, latex gloves
(and I even developed a latex allergy from using all those latex gloves!). We had to work behind thick glass shields, in chemotherapy hoods, with air
flow patterns that went from top to bottom... so we all thought we were safe. If I had known that I was giving myself a higher risk of cancer simply
by preparing these IVs, even with wearing all that protection, I probably would have said "Nope. No thanks.....I'm not going to do that."

Nuclear pharmacists clearly know their risks from working with all the radiation, and they have to wear badges....but oncology pharmacists are not
warned of the risks from working with chemotherapy. I did start hearing rumors of pharmacists (especially female pharmacists) having higher rates of
cancer after I had been practicing after 15 years, but this is the first I've heard of an actual study showing higher risks. Now that they know that
it's true, they should be warned of the risks. Oncology nurses who also administer the medicines should also be warned, too.

Originally posted by nikiano
Unfortunately, we as pharmacists were never warned about having a higher risk of cancer. We had to gown up and wear two layers of thick, latex gloves
(and I even developed a latex allergy from using all those latex gloves!). We had to work behind thick glass shields, in chemotherapy hoods, with air
flow patterns that went from top to bottom... so we all thought we were safe. If I had known that I was giving myself a higher risk of cancer simply
by preparing these IVs, even with wearing all that protection, I probably would have said "Nope. No thanks.....I'm not going to do that."

Nuclear pharmacists clearly know their risks from working with all the radiation, and they have to wear badges....but oncology pharmacists are not
warned of the risks from working with chemotherapy. I did start hearing rumors of pharmacists (especially female pharmacists) having higher rates of
cancer after I had been practicing after 15 years, but this is the first I've heard of an actual study showing higher risks. Now that they know that
it's true, they should be warned of the risks. Oncology nurses who also administer the medicines should also be warned, too.

I don't know what years you practiced, but it does look like they're trying to make improvements, judging by the source article for the Natural News
piece here

Researchers at NIOSH, a division of the CDC, were so concerned, they issued an extensive alert about handling high-risk drugs.

The guidelines, published in 2004, urge strict precautions, including use of impervious chemo gowns, double-gloving, use of sophisticated
"closed-system" devices and specialized ventilation hoods, face shields and respirators, "clean rooms" and other precautions.

But the NIOSH guidelines outlined in the alert are voluntary.

I have a problem with how the Natural News article takes a very real problem -- whether pharmacists and nurses are being adequately protected from
chemotherapeutic agents -- and tries to turn it into an anti-chemo issue.

It's also worth noting that at least one of the studies they use to base the claims of high cancer rates among nurses who handled chemo drugs was
based on data collected from the 1940s to 1970s, when protocols for handling the drugs were much different than they are now.

Something that particularly concerned me in the story though was the difference in implementation of the guidelines between large medical research
centers and small community-based health care facilities, physicians' offices, and veterinary practices.

I agree with you completely that pharmacists and nurses who handle chemo should be warned of the risks and educated in how to avoid them. And if
protocols are being broken and placing workers at risk, that needs to be addressed. But I think the OP article uses alarmist tactics, misdirection,
and outdated information to portray the situation as worse than it is.

My parents are huge purporters of herbal remedies. But when it came down to the wire, when my little brother was an infant and had a 103 fever, they
had given him echinechea and goldenseal, colloidal sivler and whatever other shaman remedies, do you think they risked his life for the sake of
avoiding medicine? No, thank god. They went to the doctor and got an NASID. His fever was gone in 20 minutes.

Modern medicine exists for a reason. There are thousands of things that were death sentences in more primitive days. Naturopaths promote naturopathy
by saying how its been around for thousands of years. Well where was it during the Asian flu pandemic of 1905? Where was it during the plague? Why
didnt it cure leprosy? Where was it during smallpox? Or when people were dying of dysentery and scarlet fever? Why do millions of people die of
malaria every year? Including villages that practice shamanism still? What about the longer life expectancy compared to just 100 years ago?

Some things need to be taken care of quickly and with a minimum margin of error. Cancer is one of those things. When people stall to "try"
"natural" treatment it could mean they sign their own death warrant.

I'm glad it worked for you. I will take my chances with chemo. As I said before, my grandma had leukemia and received chemo and died. My grandad is
still alive and well after treating liver cancer a couple of times with chemo. He will be 70 soon. I have seen both sides. I do not blame the chemo
for my grandmother's death. The doctors did what they could with what they know.

And by the way MDs commonly recommended vitamins to patients for treatment of some things like being overweight and lack of energy. They give booster
shots of b vitamins to kids. Most of the time if you ask about herbs they will let you know if it will augment treatment you are taking. Sometimes a
pharmacist can tell you certain herbs to take to improve your treatment. Most pharmacies sell herbs too. The "natural" market is a billion dollar
market just like the pharmaceutical market. Most time chemically identical drugs are cheaper than their herbal equivalent.

Drug and herbal treatment are both based on chemical reactions. Its all science. There is no magical difference between herbs and drugs.

If you think about it, in the end everything is natural. Where else would anything come from besides nture?

I for one, in no way, think that anyone deserves to get cancer whether they dispense chemo drugs or not. Just to clarify.

I also think that although you are correct in saying that patients have the choice whether to accept chemo or not, most people still don't know that
there are other viable options. They believe there is no choice but chemo because everything else is "quackery" and "bad science" even though the
science around chemo is sketchy at best (as shown in the links I posted).

It absolutely has it's place in some cases but if anyone would take the time to actually read the link regarding about Dr. Ulrich Abel, you would
see that it is used too often and incorrectly in too high a dose in (if I read his work correctly) approx. 70% of patients. And doesn't actually help
quite a bit of the time.

I also think that although you are correct in saying that patients have the choice whether to accept chemo or not, most people still don't know that
there are other viable options. They believe there is no choice but chemo because everything else is "quackery" and "bad science" even though the
science around chemo is sketchy at best (as shown in the links I posted).

I agree with you there. I feel the same way. That's why, when people ask me my opinion as a pharmacist, now I tell them about other options. Most
people don't have any idea that other options exist, and the are only told of chemo at the time of diagnosis. But in the hospital, the only opinions
they ask are that of their oncologist.

When I got sick (not with cancer) and pharmaceutical meds were too harsh for me and not working, I started doing my own research.

Unfortunately, not everybody wants to do their own research.....they want someone else to make their healthcare decisions for them.....and that's
their choice.

Should patients be given more than one choice in the hospital? Herbal, or chemo? I think that would be AWESOME! But it will never happen.

Just like when they go to a medical doctor, they are not asked, "Hey, do you want this pharmaceutical med, or do you want to see a naturopath, or a
TCM doctor, or an accupuncturist, or a homeopath, etc...?" No, people make their choice in the beginning. If they see an MD, they'll know they'll
get referrred to an oncologist if they get cancer. If they see a naturopath, they know they'll get a different type of treatment.

but if anyone would take the time to actually read the link regarding about Dr. Ulrich Abel, you would see that it is used too often and
incorrectly in too high a dose in (if I read his work correctly) approx. 70% of patients. And doesn't actually help quite a bit of the time.

That's a pretty high number if you ask me.

I haven't read his link yet....but a lot of the dose of chemo also depends on the chemo protocol the oncologist chooses to use, the oncologist
prescribing the protocols, the grade of the tumor, the type of cancer, the time of diagnosis, the degree of spreading to other areas of the body,
etc...

I know one cousin of mine got prostate cancer, and instead of doing chemo, he chose radiation pellets. His doctor told him it was gentler. Boy, does
he regret it. It caused radiation burns so bad, he's had surgery after surgery to correct the problem, and there is no end to his misery or his pain.
I tried to tell him about homeopathy for cancer, and this homeopath who is getting great cure rates, but he wanted nothing to do with it. He said he
trusted his doctor. So, what can you do? You tell people, they make their own choices. Sad, but true.

I also think that although you are correct in saying that patients have the choice whether to accept chemo or not, most people still don't know that
there are other viable options. They believe there is no choice but chemo because everything else is "quackery" and "bad science" even though the
science around chemo is sketchy at best (as shown in the links I posted).

The science around chemo isn't "sketchy" at all.

I took a few minutes and looked over this "source" you've posted, and I discovered a few interesting thigns. First, several of the supposed
references are dead links. Oddly, it's mostly those that are used to reference death rates and other statistics. Of the links that DO work, several
connect you to articles that have NOTHING to do with the information the reference is supposed to support.

Also, one of the doctors the article quotes (Allan Levin) is fictitious. I did a search for all oncologists with the last name "Levin", and there
are surprisingly few, and none who work, or ever have worked, as UCSF.

Going a few pages further, they have cited a quote by Dr. Thomas Dao, saying that breast cancer rates have not increased in the last 70 years. Of
course, what most people probably don't note is that this quote is from 1975, before the creation and use of taxol. We currently have an over 85%
5-year prognosis for most breast cancers, which is quite a change from 1975. Why wouldn't the author of this article want to use more modern quotes?
Oh, that's right...because it wouldn't fit their own dogma. Forgot about that.

A later point the article makes is that patients with advanced tumors "don't see any benefit of chemo at all". Well...obviously. Someone with an
advanced stage tumor has a lower chance of survival no matter what you do, so logically, you would see a lower percent of such patients surviving. Of
course, this survival rate has increased since the introduction of chemo.

The article continues making emotional appeals, quoting people out of context, and using poorly doctored statistics to make a weak point. If you
actually believe this tripe, then I have a beach house in Wyoming I would like to sell you.

I never said that modern medicine did not have it's place. It absolutely does. The problem occurs when people think that it is the "be all end all"
even though it has failed in many areas with simple, common, everyday illnesses.

Medicine in general is filled with mistakes. That's why they don't "bleed" people any longer. But there are successful herbs and treatments that
have been around for a long time that are effective.

Again...if you read the links I posted, there is not a "minimal margin of error" when it comes to cancer and chemo. It's rather large actually.

FYI most of the herbs that are sold in the grocery are crap. Any good herbalist will tell you that. I don't buy my herbs from Wal-Mart nor my
vitamins. They are mostly fillers and one isolated component of a vitamin that acts differently when naturally found in a fresh fruit or vegetable.

This is the problem with drugs being made from plants and herbs. They are made from the same basic thing BUT it takes one active ingredient from the
plant/herb to create the medication when it occurs naturally and therefore has a synergistic relationship with the other components in the plant/herb.
It may act differently when the active ingredient is isolated. (Sort of like the new TRUVIA made from the active component in Stevia leaves...no
thanks.)

There can be side effects to everything whether it be drugs or herbs/vitamins. And all of it can kill you in excess. But to say that herbs don't work
or are useless or "bad science" is absolutely not accurate.

And Dr's, pharmacists, etc recommending herbs & vitamins is very dependent on your regional location. I live in the south. There are few allopathic
doctors recommending anything like that down here.

I disagree with you that there is no difference in drugs and herbs. For instance, if someone came to me and said, "I'm suffering from migraines."
Among other things (and after looking at their history and seeing what medications they are taking), I would tell them that feverfew made into a tea
works wonders for migraines. 1sp in an 8oz cup of water steeped for 5-7 minutes. Add honey for taste because it's rather bitter.

Where as a pharmaceutical say, Imitrex, for migraines may have many side effects that are horrible. There are a few migraine medications that you
can't even take if EVER plan on having children. Big difference.

Or Lobelia for asthma. Fabulous asthma treatment I've recommended and given to my own husband in conjunction with other herbs good for asthma.
You would have to ingest 4lbs of it to kill you. Luckily, you'd start violently throwing up after about 4 tablespoons. You'd never make it to 4lbs.

I'm sorry about your loss. That's a horrible disease and unlike some of the sick twisted people here, I would never wish it on anyone.

I just wanted to say, you do realize that leukemia is cancer of white blood cells which are the immune system. So how can you say she had leukemia and
in the same breath say chemotherapy killed her immune system?

I knew there were options, I did my own research (and this was before the internet, I actually had to go to a library). Others knew there were
options. By the time they found out that their option wasn't working it was too late for anything to help.

That's the trouble with cancer. Time is of the essence. I chose something I had decided had the best chance of succeeding. It did. The radiation
almost got it but the chemotherapy finished the job.

There are new avenues of treatment being explored. Some of them show promise. Wheat grass doesn't do it.

I don't think naturopathy is bad science. I just am trying to make the point that pharmocology and naturopathy are the same thing. They both deal in
chemistry. Its all about chemical reactions.

Also naturopathy and pharmacology spend just as much time bashing one as the other. They both are very lucrative business. To me its like choosing
between CNN and FOX News. The only difference is that sometimes people die for watching the wrong channel. Pharmacology has killed people and
naturopathy has killed people. So naturopaths trying to paint pharmacists as the bad people is ridiculous.

That is why modern medicine is so apt to debunk naturopathic remedies, because time is of the essence. To me naturopaths can be much more sociopathic
than pharmacists. Naturopaths will insist it is normal to get worse and feel worse and boom your dead. At least a pharmacist will tell you their
treatment isn't working.

Nothing personal but people like you are also a huge part of the problem. The medical industry doesn't need your excuses. It needs reform. And if
all you're good for is poo-poo'ing viable alternatives just because you want to hop on the FDA-sponsored bandwagon of big-money disinformation, then
you're really being good for nothing at all.

So if you had cancer, you would refuse treatment with chemotherapy?

The healthcare system needing reform, and suggesting that herbal remedies are superior to chemotherapy are 2 completely separate subjects.

We are curing more instances of cancer now than at any time in our history, that does not meet my definition of FDS sponsored disinformation. There
are literally thousands of people alive today because of chemo, including many top athletes who later returned to competitive sports, Bob Champion and
Lance Armstrong to name just 2.

I respect your belief in herbal remedies, but in common with so many of the ill informed, you forget that many chemotherapy drugs are themselves
extracts from plants - one example being Vincristine, an extract from the Madagascar Perriwinkle.

Your constant mistrust of anything corporate will doom you to a fruitless and paranoid existence unless you can grow out of it, cancer is the least of
your concerns.

I went back & looked. The links are dead because it is an article from the Wayback Archive. Nothing I can do about that. If I can find a more current
version with a working reference page, I'll posy it for you.

So are you telling me that Dr. Levin doesn't exist? Well he supposedly wrote a book. I guess the book doesn't exist either. Looks like his name was
misspelled. Try: Dr. Alan Levin. He also wrote "Dissent in Medicine - Nine Doctors Speak Out" (1985)

Here is a bio I found for him although there may be a more updated one elsewhere: "Dr Alan Levin is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Immunology and
Dermatology at the University of California. He is a Fellow of the American College of Emergency Physicians, the College of American Pathologists, and
the American Society of Clinical Pathologists. Dr Levin is also a recipient of fellowships and awards from Harvard Medical School and other medical
institutions, and was Director of various research laboratories."

Yeah...the 5 yr prognosis rate...and if you die on the 5th yr & 1 day, you're still considered a survivor. I think it used to be calculated
differently. I don't have time to look it up right now.

Did you happen to read the research done by Dr. Ulrich Abel looking at thousands of studies on chemotherapy done around the world. I believe the word
he used was "appalling."

Showing studies and giving opinions of other M.D.'s apparently does no good here. It's all considered "out of context." No matter what they've
said. People in your own medical community saying, "Something is wrong here." And they are ignored.

I've never once stated that modern medicine was the devil or that doctors are evil. The way you seem to belittle anyone who disagrees with you is
just sad.

This website is about denying ignorance. The arguments between pharmacology and naturopathy are ignorant mud slinging. Its all much ado about nothing.
They are the same damn thing. Which is taking advantage of chemical reactions to improve health in some way. The two professions constantly banter
abour who is better and who to trust and they use the same insults.

I was never opposed to her trying alternatives in addition to conventional treatment. And I also respect that no matter how I may feel, this is her
choice. Her life, and ultimately, when it comes to that, her death.

We each have our own journey, and we dont get to choose other peoples for them. I pass on any possible treatments recommendations to her in their
entirety when I find them or run across them, and she makes the decisions about what she will and will not do.

I do give my opinion, which I must, so that I do not have to live wondering whether or not I should have said something, but I do make it very clear
that it is my opinion, and the decision is ultimately her own, and that she must be the one to evaluate and choose.

I do try to provide her with anything I can to help her have the information she needs to make real, free choices.

Ultimately we will all die, and it is how we live that matters most. I selfishly want my friend to live longer, but her journey and learning
experience in this world is her own.

So feel free to tell me anything with confidence that I will provide her the information. I dont choose for my friends, I just add my input and leave
it to them, as all true friends should. IMHO.

I'm sorry about your loss. That's a horrible disease and unlike some of the sick twisted people here, I would never wish it on anyone.

I just wanted to say, you do realize that leukemia is cancer of white blood cells which are the immune system. So how can you say she had leukemia and
in the same breath say chemotherapy killed her immune system?

Because that is how chemotherapy works.

The leukemia she had was slow growing....a chronic form. Chemotherapy causes a rapid loss of immune system, very quickly (you get huge drops in WBC),
and that leaves people open to huge infections from sources that would normally not kill a person. That's why, when someone is on chemo, you have to
wear face masks, gloves, etc....because the chemo depletes the immune system so dramatically and rapidly. It's common knowledge in heath care.

I know, leukemia also affects the WBC, but it does not kill like that.

This data has been collected nationwide (and in some cases, worldwide) by SEER since the early 1970s, around the time modern chemotherapeutics were
starting to make it into limited practice. As you can see from the data, cancer survival rates have increased across the board for all sexes, ages,
and types of cancer.

My grandmother had the same illness just so you know. She had to get a spinal tap because the cancer was in her spinal fluid since the only thing that
can cross that barrier are leukocytes through the lymph nodes.

Anyway I'm just saying in both cases our grandmothers had cancer of their immune system. Chemo or no, their immune systems were useless either way.
The only hope to cure that cancer is to literally kill the immune system. Because the immune system is what was killing them. Sadly leukemia is not
one of the cancers with a high survival rate. It has a very low survival rate as a matter of fact.

And I don't believe it is the chemo, but the radiation that kills the immune system.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.